1. Ext.P1 suit, instituted under Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, “the Code”), has had a varied past as it is coming up for the third time before this Court since its institution in 2010. All the times, sanction of leave, under Section 92 of the Code, was under challenge for one reason or the other. This time the petitioners (defendants in the suit) have come up with this original petition, alleging that the respondents (plaintiffs in the suit) have not disclosed their interest in the trust nowhere in Ext.P1 plaint and a few sentences occurring here and there do not even remotely suggest the existence of any interest the plaintiffs said to have in the religious trust. It is therefore contended that one of the essential ingredients of Section 92 of the Code is missing in Ext.P1 and for the same reason sanction of leave as per Ext.P2 order by the Additional District Judge is legally unsustainable.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

3. The suit is in respect of administration of Valiya Koonambaikulam Sree Bhadrakali Temple trust (1st defendant). In paragraph 5 of Ext.P1 plaint, it is mentioned that the status of the 1st defendant is that of a constructive trust. Averments in Ext.P1 elsewhere will show that it is an express religious trust dedicated to the public, especially to all faithful, including the plaintiffs. Specific instances of mismanagement by the defendants are mentioned in Ext.P1. The petitioners (defendants) have not delivered their defence so far.

4. The trial court granted leave under Section 92 of the Code to institute the suit vide order dated 04.03.2011. The grant of leave was challenged before this Court and the order passed by the original court was set aside on 19.01.2015 vide order in C.R.P. No. 210 of 2012. It appears that the aggrieved party had taken up the matter in S.L.P. No. 34961 of 2015 before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court directed the trial court to consider the matter afresh. Again, on 15.12.2016 the Additional District Judge granted leave under Section 92 of the Code. Once again it was challenged before this Court in O.P.(C) No. 747 of 2017 and a learned Single Judge, vide judgment dated 12.04.2017, set aside the order passed by the trial court and remanded the case for a fresh determination with reference to the averments in the plaint. Subsequently the impugned order was passed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in spite of repeated directions, the court below failed to consider the averments in Ext.P1 plaint before granting leave. It will be apposite to refer to the relevant part of Section 92 of the Code for appreciating the point in controversy. I shall extract the same :

“Public charities.- (1) In the case of any alleged breach of any express or constructive trust created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature, or where the direction of the Court is deemed necessary for the administration of any such trust, the Advocate-General, or two or more persons having an interest in the trust and having obtained the leave of the Court, may institute a suit, whether contentious or not, in the principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction or in any other Court empowered in that behalf by the State Government within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the whole or any part of the subject-matter of the trust is situate, to obtain a decree-

(a) removing any trustee;

(b) appointing a new trustee;

(c) vesting any property in a trustee;

(cc) directing a trustee who has been removed or a person who has ceased to be a trustee, to deliver possession of any trust property in his possession to the person entitled to the possession of such property;

(d) directing accounts and inquiries;

(e) declaring what proportion of the trust-property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust.

(f) authorizing the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged or